There were two opposing views in the Senate yesterday as debate on the Police (Amendment) Bill, 2017 continued.
Independent Senator Carol Lady Haynes and Government Senator Verla Depeiza offered different positions on the proposed amendments, which have whipped up heated public discussion, especially from interest group the Bar Association and some of its individual members.
Calling the amendments “draconian”, Lady Haynes, whose professional title is Dr Carol Jacobs, said she could not support the amendments because several of the sections therein caused her some “worry”, and asked that it be withdrawn for further consideration.
But in its defence, Democratic Labour Party member Verla Depeiza asked that Barbadians examine the bigger purpose of the legislation before condemning it.
“I don’t know there is any subtle way to put it. This is how it shakes down. Would you rather that the state curtails your rights and freedoms in pursuit of that greater good, or would you prefer that the criminal elements curtail your rights and freedoms in pursuit of their selfish gains? That is the crux and the nugget of the matter,” she said.
Tolerate
“Understand for yourselves individually, people of Barbados, which one of the two matters more to you and then, only then, answer for yourself whether this is a piece of legislation that you can tolerate,” Depeiza said while supporting the proposed amendments in the Upper Chamber last evening.
In her address to the Senate prior to Depeiza’s submission, Lady Haynes voiced her concerns about several aspects of the legislation, including the definition of “disturbance of the peace” as listed under the subsection of serious violence; the length of time officers would be given to present their reports after the closure of a cordon [the act proposed three days]; as well as her belief that searches could be carried out on premises without the possession of a warrant.
However, her biggest objection was the penalty put forth against any individual who used abusive or insulting language to members of the Royal Barbados Police Force while carrying out their duties.
Penalty
The penalty for assaulting or obstructing members in the force in the execution of their duty lists three infringements: any person who assaults, obstruct or resists; any person who uses any abusive or insulting language; and aids or incites any person to assault, obstruct or resist.
Lady Haynes contended that abusive language did not warrant being among the listed violations.
“My children would tell you I am the first one to be horrified at the use of abusive language or cussing. I find that if you speak English you really don’t need to resort to cuss words. However, to say if someone, in this situation, uses abusive or insulting language, they are subject to a fine of $5 000 or imprisonment for a term of two years, I find that really worries me.
“Further down it has a similar category where it speaks similarly about the use of abusive or insulting language to a fine of $10 000 or imprisonment for a term of three years or both.
“Whereas, I think assaulting, obstructing or resisting or aiding or inciting any person to those things is a serious offence, I cannot see that using abusive or insulting language could or should fall into that same category,” she maintained. “I therefore cannot support the amendments to this bill . . . .”
Depeiza noted that much of what was contained in the proposed legislation already existed under the Emergency Powers legislation.
“We’ve never had to use it and so it seems to have fallen out of the minds of people,” she said.
“What is different here is who controls the determination of a curfew. Under the Constitution, the Governor General has that final say. Under Emergency Powers, the Prime Minister and Attorney General have that final say. In this it comes down another step: the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police.
“So what is different constitutionally? Emergency powers are exercised over an entire country, whereas by this piece of legislation [a] proposed curfew will be over an area.”
But Depeiza added that her endorsement of the bill was not without some concern, as she believes curfews have the potential to breach one’s constitutional rights.
“. . . Simply because to cordon off an area and institute a curfew will impact on individual rights. There is no way to get around that,” she said.
“You are going to trample on individual rights if you tell people they can’t leave home past a certain time and don’t come back out until morning.
“All of the other things that police will be able to do within that curfew area they already can do anyway. They can stop, they can search, they can arrest without warrant, they can set up cordons. The troubling one for me is the curfew. You are disturbing people’s rights, you are disturbing people’s livelihoods.
“That, to my mind, is the only nugget in this bill that is worth all of the consideration that we have had,” Depeiza said. (SDB Media)